About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Soma 5, San Francisco 2, Us 2, Moore 2, Sugaya 2, Hillis 2, Fong 2, Dufty 1, Wu 1, Hayward 1, Cynthia Hayward 1, Antonini 1, California 1, Tim Cohen 1, Usf 1, The City 1, Wiener 1, Junius 1, Corey 1, Rubin 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 4, 2012
    2:00 - 2:30am PST  

2:00am
that project still needs grandfathering or if it's a bigger problem. >> commissioner hillis. >> a question on the 11th street project. i'm also supportive of 3b, but is that project grandfathered in, then, under 3b? i thought not. >> no. there is no grandfathering of any project. >> but it wouldn't be allowed under 3b? >> right. it won be permitted under the wmuo zoning. >> can you tell us more about that project, like how many units? >> if you don't mind, i have the architect come up, he can tell you much bert than i can. >> yeah. * better than i can >> commissioners, john goldman. 24 units along 11th street. all the units are either studios or one bedrooms. and the only two bedrooms are at the back along the rear yard. and that was done for sound
2:01am
isolation purposes in response to our working with the nighttime entertainment people back in 2005. we actually had three meetings and actually kind of revised the plan numerous times to fit their goals. i think now it would be acceptable to them. at least acceptable to one of the club owners. i haven't talked to the others specifically. but there would be 24 units. >> you talked about [speaker not understood]. do you know the exact number? >> if you give me a minute, i've got the plans with me. >> that's all right. >> okay. it's roughly -- there's more studios than one bedrooms in the two-bedroom town houses. the two bedrooms are all at the back. >> thank you. >> sure. >> so, on that, too, i think this is a unique situation. we talk about grandfathering pipeline projects. but it seems like it's a last -- you know, kind of a last minute change of the zoning that wasn't necessarily contemplated. so, i would be supportive of
2:02am
some kind of grandfathering carve out, whatever we want to call it for that project on 11th street. and then -- but i like the fact, too -- i think if there is support for that, there should be provisions it's predominantly one bedrooms and studios and hopefully even, you know, more of the one bedrooms and studios and less of the two bedrooms. the issue on the historic buildings in article 10 and 11, i'm a little confused. i understand there's -- we've made it more restrictive than saying landmarks and article 10 buildings. there seem to be some middle area where eastern neighborhoods allows kind of a broad if you're eligible, but there was an article 10. i don't know the distinction between those two. >> sure. essentially, eastern neighborhoods, the bar is somewhat lower because it basically says if you're in a
2:03am
building that's been surveyed and it's been determined to be eligible for the state or national register, then you could take advantage potentially of these more flexible land uses. you don't actually have to be on the state or national registry -- >> article 11? >> no. article 10, article 11 -- article 10 and 11 are the planning code where we as a city designate them as landmarks as opposed to being on the a state or national -- >> when you talk about there's a lot of buildings that would fall under this eastern neighborhoods type designation of historic, are there a lot that would be fall under the article 11 definition of historic? >> not article 11. article 11 primarily deals with downtown. there is only a small portion of that district -- that area that overlaps the western soma. and even within article 11 there are categories of rating and -- [multiple voices] >> article 11 is not something that would have a big impact on
2:04am
western soma in terms of there aren't a lot of buildings that would be eligible for article 11 in western soma. >> okay. is that an idea that's been considered? i know the article 10 -- >> that was something that was brought up, was to -- along with the article 10 -- along with the kind of article 10 landmark threshold also providing an article 11 threshold with a certain rating criteria, like category i through 4. >> right, okay. it would be good to kind of know what the inventory is or some idea of kind of the article 10, article 11 and in the broader eastern neighborhoods. the four-block kind of overlap, i can't recall. is it currently -- do you -- is it in the plan that this is being studied? i mean, is there any reference to the fact that this is being studied elsewhere? >> no. [multiple voices] >> the plan in front of you was drafted, basically the draft was completed in 2008. >> right. >> at that time there was no
2:05am
central corridor project. so, it did not include any recognition of that planning process. i don't think there was -- it was not planned that the e-i-r would take four years and we'd be in a situation where this is an issue. >> so, you said [speaker not understood]. would you be okay with putting some recognition that that's -- that area is being studied under a separate planning process? >> that's a question for the commission to provide direction on in terms of -- if they want to address the overlap, how would you want to address it, whether it be the option or some other option. >> okay, thanks. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes. on the historic aspect, i think we should think about as a staff, i'd like to have the staff think about expanding the current -- currently we're just talking about article 10 -- corey, are you using that
2:06am
designation as the trigger at the moment in the plan itself? so, the plan references article 10 landmarks. >> the plan, say like the area plan, did not recognize that level of -- it did you tellxction set the exact trigger what level of historical. but that is in the planning code in terms of implementing the plan. and that was a conscious decision after looking at, depending on where we set the threshold, what would the potential outcome be if we use the same eastern neighborhoods threshold. it would be an extremely high number. >> i'm not trying to push it to eligibility, but i think if we can consider landmarks and eligible buildings properties within designated historic districts, because that's an article 10 -- that's within article 10. you can either designate landmarks individually as properties or their historic preservation commission and the board of supervisors can adopt
2:07am
the historic district. that isn't to say that the surveys have been done, then lead to either one. there has to be an official action taken by the two bodies in order for a landmark to be designated and also for historic district to be designated. so, i'd like to have some consideration given by the commission to extending the liberalization of uses to contributory buildings in designated historic districts, of which i don't think there are any in western soma at the moment. i don't believe so. >> i don't believe so. >> okay. and the other approach might be to take a look at what kind of liberalization could be implemented for these types of buildings and there could be a difference between, for example, landmark buildings and contributory buildings. i think it's mainly -- the
2:08am
liberalization is aimed at uses i think and what can be allow and had what can't be allowed. and there might be consideration to tweaking that a bit for the plan in terms of what kinds of uses might be allowed and what kinds of uses might not be. so, that's a suggestion. and then just on -- this isn't directed to you, it's just a comment. on the overlap between the two planning areas, it seems to me that -- i was just reading the business times the other day and there is an article about the central corridor plan. and i didn't quite understand the paragraph that said, the planning department has issued a call -- i think it's properly called, a call for development proposals within this area. and it seems to me that if the department has already gone ahead and issued whatever it
2:09am
issued, for developers to come in and make proposals, then why in the hell are we even talking about this? this is an already foregone conclusion. so, i think we either got to treat it in this plan right now or we've got to reopen the entire issue of the central corridor plan, not make it informational any more, and have to take some action on it because this is really bad. it's appalling to think that a city department has issued a call for development in an area where the zoning doesn't allow for it currently. and we ought to hit the nail on the head or do something about it, you know. it just does not sit well. if we adopt this plan and then a year and a half or two years or three years later another commission is going to just turn around and undo everything that we've just adopted, it doesn't make any sense. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, thank you. in regards to the four blocks as we all know, there's a huge infrastructure investment in the central subway and other things. you know, it has been looked at
2:10am
as an area that would lend itself to development and makes a lot of sense to me. but i do remember during eastern neighborhoods when we had an area that we left out of the eastern neighborhoods and we kept it fli voting, i can't remember the exact borders of that because we weren't sure exactly what was going to come forward in the future. and perhaps something along that line might make sense. there are a couple of ways. we could leave -- i don't know what the existing zoning is in terms of -- i'm not sure it's an m1, i don't know what's zoned there at the present time. but whatever it is, the present zoning could stay in place, but it would be included as part of western soma for purposes of area plans. but there would be a restrictions on any kind of building before we were able to
2:11am
pass judgment on the central corridor. so, no one could run in and build something that might be totally incompatible with the rest of western soma under the existing zoning were it to be permitted. but this would allow a time to consider the central corridor and interface it with what is proposed for the western soma. but i think we need to look at this with more attention before just passing whatever is there because as i mentioned in my earlier comments, i've looked at the zoning. i don't think we've had the degree of attention given in public comment or in our discussions here as to what it actually call for. and i think we would like to see that. i don't know if we could do it right now, but certainly next week or before any final action is taken as to what's allowed, what are the height restrictions now, the density
2:12am
now, the parking restrictions now, all the types of things that might be factors that would dissuade development in the future in that area and then make a decision as to leave things as they are, move forward included in western soma with some sort of restrictions or cus required on almost anything that might be built there even if, you know, normally it would be as a right. that way in protection for people who may not want anything just built haphazardly there, it would be in place. but that would be kind of my thoughts on that zone. >> commissioner wu. >> thanks. so, on the issue of entertainment, i think there is starting to be some commission consensus on 3b and an interest it in looking at whether or not 340 111th can be grandfathered. * 11th commissioner moore asked does
2:13am
that apply to anyone else, is it just this one housing project. with regard to the historical question, i am also supportive of some sense of liberalization allowing some other uses to be in those buildings. but doesn't sound like the eastern neighborhoods standard is manageable. sounds like it's too many buildings. so, would like to see staff provide some information before next week. on the question of central corridor, i think it's actually real important for the western soma plan to go through as it is. i've heard the department say that over and over again. that's the way it's been introduced to me and that central corridor could be taken up if and when the time came. i would like staff to look into whether or not there has been some protocol for projects and what that means, what that actual article said because then that puts the commission obviously in a difficult position. >> commissioner moore. >> the [speaker not understood] position which the western soma task force has been taken
2:14am
throughout its tame of carefully wedding together the many community interests i think should make us very sensitive to looking at this housing project which has been around for quite sometime. and while there might be in the future conflicting land uses because entertainment and housing don't mix as well, i think it is ultimately in the sensitivity of this applicant to do what he ultimately takes risk for. and as far as the central corridor plan, i believe that is a project that has significant enough of a timeline. and i think i want to strongly support the respect for a process which i consider mature inclusive and very much exemplary for neighborhood driven planning as i think the western plan is. and i think a plan which is much younger and has not really gone quite through the scrutiny as the other one has, or just
2:15am
follow. we'll find this discussion, and i believe western soma would be interested to find common ground in those areas where the two plans support or conflict each other. that is just the nature of mature planning. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i didn't intend to imply that i wanted to hold this up. i'm perfectly fine with moving ahead with the western soma plan the way it is with some tweaks here and there. but not to embrace anything that has to do with central corridor at the moment. >> commissioner hillis. >> again, central corridor, i want to clarify i'm also for moving forward on the zoning. i just think we should make note of what's actually happening in reality. i mean, central corridor -- this plan took a long time to get through the process, even kind of in san francisco standards, you know. took about as long as the shelf life of zoning. so, i don't think it's unreasonable that we're now undertaking a plan in the same area, generally in the same
2:16am
area in some overlap. so, i'd just like to see that recognized somewhere in the plan that that's actually happening. i think it makes sense when people look back on it and ask that question, why are we looking at central corridor so soon after we've adopted this plan. i think there is legitimate reason for it. so, we should state that. >> any additional comment? okay, thank you. >> commissioners, it will place you under item 13 for case no. 2012.1315 t, amendments to the planning code adding new section 102.36.1 to establish an annual monitoring requirement for student housing conversions. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission. cynthia hayward, planning staff. this ordinance was proposed by supervisor kim and i see that [speaker not understood] from her staff is here. so, with your permission i'd like to turn the presentation over to him to begin.
2:17am
>> members of the commission, president fong. so, we are here talking about student housing again. we felt when the discussion came to the board, there was a piece missing and we recognize all the work that has gone into the original legislation that supervisor wiener introduced and to not hold all that work up and the new incentives to a commonly acknowledged goal of building new student housing up by creating a new requirement and amending the original legislation. we introduced trailing legislation. the process for us was clear. there were advantages and bonuses offered in the original legislation and legislation passed by supervisor, then supervisor dufty. and we believe to track
2:18am
accurately what was happening with new student housing was a must. we looked, to my experience, the experience of the residents of district 6 and what happened in a similar fashion with the hotel conversion ordinance in which we, the city monitors when units are converted from tourist use to residential use. and we want to kind of take a look at that ordinance and see how we could fit it in with this ordinance. so that a developer that builds a mixed use residential and student housing project is able to have the flexibility granted by the legislation to change the use from student housing to residential use within the same development, but that the city is also able to then come in and monitor what are the requirements and the fees that they need to then pay.
2:19am
i think that we want to get this right. we are supportive of the recommendation of the planning staff. we have also heard from community members that there might need to be more time for discussion. this is clearly in your hands now, commissioners. i would say that we want to get it right. and if what is needed is a little bit more time, i think that the intent of the legislation as presented by myself today is pretty clear. we want reporting to be for new development exclusively to take advantage of these f.a.r. bonuses, [speaker not understood], and that is what the legislation wants to accomplish. as with every legislation drafting process, there were
2:20am
some additional things that made it into the legislation, but that is our goal and it's clearly stated today. so, we would like and look forward to hearing your feedback and look forward to hearing what other stakeholders have in continuing this discussion no matter what decision you reach today. >> commissioners, [speaker not understood] hayward, planning staff. the proposed ordinance before you would establish a new annual monitoring requirement for student housing conversions. so, the ordinance would also require a posting to announce that the report is available for public review and it would provide an enforcement mechanism for failure to submit the annual report. the department's recommendation is that the commission recommend to the board of supervisors approval of a specific modifications that will go through for you today. as drafted, the annual report
2:21am
would be required of each entity that owns, operates, or controls student housing and the requirement would apply to all providers of student housing whether or not the student housing is located on an institution's campus and whether the operator or owner is taking advantage of any of the incentives offered to encourage the production of student housing. and those enincentives include an exemption from the inclusionary housing fees, a floor area bonus, or the exemption for unit mix requirement. the report would be required as drafted annually whether or not any conversions have occurred. so, the department's recommended modifications are intended to simplify the method and the frequency of the monitoring report. the department recommends the following specific modifications. first, that there be an official filing and that the full report be required only when any of the incentives,
2:22am
inclusionary housing, the exemption from inclusionary housing, f.a.r. bonus, or any of the others are applied to a proposed project. or when student housing has been converted other forms of housing. if no incentive has been invoked or no conversion has occurred, we recommend that no new be required. however, we do recommend that every two years ownerrs or operators of student housing submit a letter to the department just confirming that no change has in fact occurred. * report and in order to better coincide with our existing reporting requirements for similar housing data, the department recommends that when the report be submitted, it be submitted by january 31st with data for the previous calendar year. and that way the data would be able to be included in our spring housing inventory. procedurally, we see this reporting requirement as an addition to conditions of approval for new student housing projects and that the
2:23am
report could be filed based on a form that we would develop that would be available on the website. and that would just ensure that the data is consistent across projects by multiple developers or project sponsors. and then lastly, the department recommends that the proposed requirement that the zoning administrator be informed in writing of any conversions from student housing to any other form of housing be removed from the poe posed ordinance. the existing requirements for conversion from student housing to any other form of housing are already outlined in planning code section 307j and that requires a review by the zoning administrator. so, we saw this component as duplicative. the department has heard from the housing action coalition. i believe that all or most of you received a letter requesting a continuance of this item. and in addition to that department staff has had a series of proposed [speaker not understood] with one member of the telephone. and that conclude my presentation.
2:24am
i'm available for questions. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? good afternoon, commissioners. tim cohen on behalf of the housing action coalition. i'm just a little history. we worked over a period of several years collaboratively with a lot of the stakeholders, elected officials, city agencies, schools, housing builders in ways that we could craft the ordinances that were carried and passed by the city, by supervisor dufty and wiener. and we're therefore puzzled that from what we can tell, no outreach whatsoever has been made to any of the schools or potential housing builders who might be possibly affected by this proposed ordinance. and i think that at a minimum
2:25am
they might have been consulted for their views on ways to address legitimate city interest about housing and how student housing is supposed to work in the city. we don't think that the staff report -- it's a good start, but we don't think it's there yet. we think it needs more work. and it's not clear to us at this point why this ordinance has been proposed. student housing already reports -- and this is the work we did. it has clear reporting requirements to the mayor's office of housing. in addition, schools are required to have institutional master plan. and this appears to be a duplicative unnecessary third layer of reporting. and not sure to what purpose. we've always supported the monitoring and reporting of student housing that takes advantage of the exemptions in the ordinance such as inclusionary housing, f.a.r. bonuses and dwelling unit
2:26am
mixes. but this would require additional reporting on all student housing regardless of whether it took advantage of these exemptions or not. and finally, we question the timing of this proposal because before a single unit of new housing -- student housing is built, the city already appears ready to impose more process on a project we all agree is in terribly short supply. for these reasons, we don't think it's unfair to ask that a wider discussion be held among the many stakeholder groups, especially including the schools and people -- parties that might be interested in building housing that would be subject to this, to have an opportunity to offer their views. i've heard personally from san francisco art institute, california college of arts, and u.c. hastings and no one has ever asked them what their
2:27am
views on new reporting requirements were. i think it's not unfair to ask for a continuance. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. dan from tan with rubin and junius. i'm a member of the action housing coalition and also represent panorama interest that will be beforehand you with the first student housing project developed under the student ordinance. i'm very happy to have participated in developing this new program. we think it's going to be a good one, a very successful one. it was certainly developed through a very transparent and open process where everybody really had an opportunity to vet it, to consider the issues, to weigh in. we haven't been given that opportunity on this -- on this reporting requirement. even after a very cursory look,
2:28am
it seems that there are some problems. again, as tim said, the timing is odd. the first student housing project hasn't even come out of the ground yet and already we're going to have three layers of reporting requirements related to student housing. institutional master plans, the planning code sections that i just handed out to you that are overseen by both the planning department and the mayor's office of housing, and now this new ordinance. it seems -- it seems more than a little excessive given where we are. we think the existing monitoring program is a robust one. at the very least, all of the reporting requirements should be integrated into a single planning code section without any internal conflicts. for example, right now if this ordinance were passed as proposed, you'd have conflicting dates when the reports get submitted. you'd have conflicting -- you'd
2:29am
have conflicting rules about when you have to declare that you're converting -- it really is not ready for prime time. we would like the opportunity to work with the supervisor's office some more and come back to you for a recommendation on a product that is actually ready for you to consider. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. caroline [speaker not understood] with [speaker not understood]. i'm here on behalf of usf regarding this legislation. we have some serious concerns about it and we would really appreciate a continuance on this matter. that being said, i understand that you may not continue so i'd like to make a few limited comments. the stated purpose of this legislation is to monitor the conversion of student housing to nonstudent housing use. so, that beg